Talk:Recyclic life support system
Merge Unless we know what exactly makes this different from a plain old life support system (which usually recycles things), I suggest a merge. 31dot (talk) 19:35, June 23, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose there's a difference implied by the fact that Janeway specifically calls it that, despite being familiar with the term sans "recyclic". --LauraCC (talk) 19:37, June 23, 2016 (UTC) ::Oppose. Laura is right: the fact that it's not just called a life support system implies this is a specific type rather than a synonym. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:35, June 25, 2016 (UTC) All life support systems recycle or recirculate something; the use of "recyclic" seems descriptive rather than part of its name. 31dot (talk) 13:52, June 25, 2016 (UTC) :And the 20th century version may operate on entirely different principles. --LauraCC (talk) 13:37, June 25, 2016 (UTC) The key word there being "may". We don't know. In terms of organizational purposes it seems highly unlikely that people will search for "recyclic life support system" and more people will read this reference if it is part of the life support system article. 31dot (talk) 13:52, June 25, 2016 (UTC) :I understand. If we ever divide technology by era of use, maybe. --LauraCC (talk) 13:57, June 25, 2016 (UTC) ::The idea that all life support systems recycle or recirculate something is unfounded. Sure, by current understanding a spaceship would have to have some kind of closed loop where poop eventually turns into food again, but there's no evidence that principle holds true in the age of antimatter reaction powered replicators. Also if 24th century systems only "may" operate different from 20th century ones, then we ought to err on the side of caution and not assume that two differently named terms are the same -- Capricorn (talk) 16:44, June 25, 2016 (UTC) Even if that's true, I don't think it helps the information here to bury it with a title few people will look for. 31dot (talk) 22:39, June 27, 2016 (UTC) :::Support. I agree with the sentiment that every life support system is recycling. Tucker says in "we recycle pretty much everything on a starship" and even the later replicators are essentially a recycling system, since we see people put their empty plates/glasses back into the replicator to be reabsorbed. So even if the air/oxygen is not recycled in our traditional sense, but instead replicated anew it is still a recyclic life support system. Kennelly (talk) 13:35, September 26, 2016 (UTC) ::And yet we have no idea if that hypothesized type of recycling would be described as a "recyclic life support system" by characters, or if the term only refers to the specific primitive technology nasa used. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:00, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :Terminology is everything if the item is never seen or said to be one and the same. --LauraCC (talk) 17:05, September 29, 2016 (UTC) ::::oppose. It's not the same. It may serve the same purpose, but this would be like merging with because they both fly in space. They aren't the same thing, just the same idea, separated by centuries of advancements. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:59, December 22, 2016 (UTC) As I indicated, we don't know what those differences are. For example, in Geordi states that impulse engines haven't changed in 200 years. That could be the case with this technology. 31dot (talk) 09:40, December 22, 2016 (UTC) :::: ...which was explicitly stated. What you are speculating with supporting this proposal was not stated as such, therefore we cannot assume that that reasoning can be applied like this across the board. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:17, December 22, 2016 (UTC)